Israel Guarantees Each Other

What does the imagry of two seperate mountains represent?

What does the imagry of a single mountain represent?

At Har Grizim & Eival, a Covenant of was made.
Talmud Stotah:
1. implies this competes the mission of Abraham.
2. describes the covenant as operating on the national-level.
3. All of Israel are guarantours for one another.
Talmud Kiddusihin: Judgement operates based on majority.
Talmud Shabat:
1. There is death without sin
2. The Original Sin isn't considered Sin.
The Zohar Bo: Notes that Judgement operates on the whole.
Talmud Shavuot: The responsibility is mainly on the obligation to rebuke.

The mountain of Sinai represents the single rule for all of Israel
The double-mountains of Grizim & Eival represent a bi-modal distribution, because:
- People affect each other
- We all have the same lot, instead of lots of little mountains, we are all stuck on one.

״בְּאֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיּוֹשֵׁב בָּעֲרָבָה״ — אֵלּוּ הַר גְּרִיזִים וְהַר עֵיבָל, שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בָּהֶם כּוּתִיִּים. ״מוּל הַגִּלְגָּל״ — סָמוּךְ לַגִּלְגָּל, ״אֵצֶל אֵלוֹנֵי מֹרֶה״ — שְׁכֶם. וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם בָּאָרֶץ עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה״, מָה אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — שְׁכֶם, אַף כָּאן — שְׁכֶם.

Sotah 33b:5

“In the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah”; this is referring to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, where the Samaritans now live. “Over against Gilgal”; this means near Gilgal. “Beside the oaks of Moreh”; this is referring to Shechem. And from where is it derived that this is Shechem? There, with regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And Abram passed through the land until the place of Shechem, until the oaks of Moreh” (Genesis 12:6). Just as the oaks of Moreh stated there are identified as Shechem, so too here, they are Shechem.

By learning the location of Har Grizim and Eival from the verse regarding Avraham's entry to Israel, it implicitly connects the event to the beginning. This helps understand why this location was chosen for the renewal of the covenant: To link Israel's entry to Israel to Avaraham's entry to Israel.

סוטה ל״ז ב:ה׳

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים.

Sotah 37b:5

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: There is no mitzva written in the Torah for which forty-eight covenants were not established 603,550 times, corresponding to the population of the Jewish people in the desert. This is because each member of the Jewish people received the covenant both for himself and as a guarantor for the rest of the Jewish people.

סוטה ל״ז ב:ו׳

אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין לְךָ כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים. נִמְצָא לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים.

Sotah 37b:6

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko, who spoke in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there is no mitzva in the Torah for which forty-eight covenants were not established 603,550 times; it follows that for every one of the Jewish people there were 603,550 covenants.

סוטה ל״ז ב:ז׳

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: עָרְבָא וְעָרְבָא דְעָרְבָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

Sotah 37b:7

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the statements of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? What does the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rav Mesharshiyya said: The matter of a guarantor and a guarantor for a guarantor is the difference between them. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, every Jew is not only rendered a guarantor for every other Jew, but he is also rendered a guarantor for every other Jew’s responsibility as a guarantor. Therefore, according to his calculation, the number of covenants is multiplied again by 603,550.

Israel accepts responsibility for the behavior of other Jews.
Communal responsiblity implies communal outcomes.
We observe this, that personal outcomes are a function of ones' behavior in addtion to the behavior of other.
The following Gemara from Kiddushin 40b reiterates this concept in different words.

קידושין מ׳ ב:א׳

יִרְאֶה אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ חֶצְיוֹ חַיָּיב וְחֶצְיוֹ זַכַּאי. עָשָׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – אַשְׁרָיו, שֶׁהִכְרִיעַ עַצְמוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת, עָבַר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת – אוֹי לוֹ, שֶׁהִכְרִיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְכַף חוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחוֹטֶא אֶחָד יְאַבֵּד טוֹבָה הַרְבֵּה״ – בִּשְׁבִיל חֵטְא יְחִידִי שֶׁחָטָא אוֹבֵד מִמֶּנּוּ טוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

Kiddushin 40b:1

a person should view himself as though he were exactly half-liable and half-meritorious. In other words he should act as though the plates of his scale are balanced, so that if he performs one mitzva he is fortunate, as he tilts his balance to the scale of merit. If he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts his balance to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good” (Ecclesiastes 9:18), which means that due to one sin that a person transgresses he squanders much good.

קידושין מ׳ ב:ב׳

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁהָעוֹלָם נִידּוֹן אַחַר רוּבּוֹ, וְהַיָּחִיד נִידּוֹן אַחַר רוּבּוֹ, עָשָׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – אַשְׁרָיו, שֶׁהִכְרִיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם לְכַף זְכוּת, עָבַר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת – אוֹי לוֹ, שֶׁהִכְרִיעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם לְכַף חוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחוֹטֵא אֶחָד כּוּ׳״ – בִּשְׁבִיל חֵטְא יְחִידִי שֶׁעָשָׂה זֶה אָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִכׇּל הָעוֹלָם טוֹבָה הַרְבֵּה.

Kiddushin 40b:2

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Since the world is judged by its majority, i.e., depending on whether people have performed a majority of mitzvot or a majority of sins, and an individual is likewise judged by his majority, each person must consider that if he performs one mitzva he is praiseworthy, as he tilts the balance of himself and the entire world to the scale of merit. Conversely, if he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts the balance for himself and the entire world to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good,” i.e., due to one sin that this individual commits, he squanders much goodness from himself and from the entire world.

The Talmud in Shabbat 55a presents third perspective.
If people are judged as a community, then people will have good or bad things happen to them that they don't deserve.
What do we think about this?

שבת נ״ה א:י״ז

אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: אֵין מִיתָה בְּלֹא חֵטְא, וְאֵין יִסּוּרִין בְּלֹא עָוֹן.

אֵין מִיתָה בְּלֹא חֵטְא — דִּכְתִיב: ״הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחוֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת בֵּן לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הָאָב וְאָב לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הַבֵּן צִדְקַת הַצַּדִּיק עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה וְרִשְׁעַת הָרָשָׁע עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״. אֵין יִסּוּרִין בְּלֹא עָוֹן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וּבִנְגָעִים עֲוֹנָם״.

Shabbat 55a:17

The Gemara continues its discussion of punishment in general and the relationship between a person’s actions and the punishments meted out against him in particular: Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity.

The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death without sin, as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalms 89:33).

שבת נ״ה ב:א׳

מֵיתִיבִי: אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! מִפְּנֵי מָה קָנַסְתָּ מִיתָה עַל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִצְוָה קַלָּה צִוִּיתִיו וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ, וּמֵתוּ! אָמַר לָהֶם: ״מִקְרֶה אֶחָד לַצַּדִּיק וְלָרָשָׁע לַטּוֹב וְגוֹ׳״!

Shabbat 55b:1

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, why did You penalize Adam, the first man, with the death penalty? He said to them: I gave him a simple mitzva, and he violated it. They said to Him: Didn’t Moses and Aaron, who observed the whole Torah in its entirety, nevertheless die? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, citing the verse: “All things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him who sacrifices, and to him who does not sacrifice; as is the good, so is the sinner; and he who swears, as he who fears an oath” (Ecclesiastes 9:2). Apparently, death is not dependent upon one’s actions. Everyone dies.

שבת נ״ה ב:ב׳

הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בְּחֶטְאָם מֵתוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יַעַן לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי״. הָא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי — עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנְּכֶם לִיפָּטֵר מִן הָעוֹלָם.

Shabbat 55b:2

The Gemara answers: Rav Ami stated his position in accordance with this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Even Moses and Aaron died due to their sin, as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation in to the land which I have given them” (Numbers 20:12). Had you believed in Me and spoken to the rock as commanded, your time would not yet have come to leave the world. Apparently, even Moses and Aaron died due to their sins.

שבת נ״ה ב:ג׳

מֵיתִיבִי: אַרְבָּעָה מֵתוּ בְּעֶטְיוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בִּנְיָמִין בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְעַמְרָם אֲבִי מֹשֶׁה, וְיִשַׁי אֲבִי דָוִד, וְכִלְאָב בֶּן דָּוִד. וְכוּלְּהוּ גְּמָרָא, לְבַר מִיִּשַׁי אֲבִי דָוִד דִּמְפָרֵשׁ בָּהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת עֲמָשָׂא שָׂם אַבְשָׁלוֹם תַּחַת יוֹאָב (שַׂר) [עַל] הַצָּבָא וַעֲמָשָׂא בֶן אִישׁ וּשְׁמוֹ יִתְרָא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל אֲבִיגַיִל בַּת נָחָשׁ אֲחוֹת צְרוּיָה אֵם יוֹאָב״.

Shabbat 55b:3

The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in the following baraita: Four people died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent, in the wake of which death was decreed upon all of mankind, although they themselves were free of sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Kilab, son of David. And all of them were learned through tradition, except for Yishai, father of David, with regard to whom there is an explicit verse interpreted homiletically, as it is written: “And Absalom placed Amasa in charge of the army in place of Joab, and Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra the Israelite, who had taken to himself Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, the mother of Joab” (II Samuel 17:25).

שבת נ״ה ב:ד׳

וְכִי בַּת נָחָשׁ הֲוַאי? וַהֲלֹא בַּת יִשַׁי הֲוַאי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַחְיוֹתֵיהֶן צְרוּיָה וַאֲבִיגַיִל״. אֶלָּא: בַּת מִי שֶׁמֵּת בְּעֶטְיוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ.

Shabbat 55b:4

The Gemara asks: And was Abigail the daughter of Nahash? Wasn’t she the daughter of Yishai, as it is written: “And Yishai begot his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. And Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite” (I Chronicles 2:13–17)? Apparently, Abigail was the daughter of Yishai. Rather, the verse states that Abigail was the daughter of Nahash in order to teach us that she was the daughter of one who died on account of Adam’s sin with the serpent [naḥash], though he himself was free of sin.

שבת נ״ה ב:ה׳

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא תַּנָּא דְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, וְהָא אִיכָּא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן! אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ מִיתָה בְּלֹא חֵטְא וְיֵשׁ יִסּוּרִין בְּלֹא עָוֹן, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְרַב אַמֵּי — תְּיוּבְתָּא.

Shabbat 55b:5

The Gemara now clarifies the matter: Who is the tanna of the baraita that states that four people did not die due to their own sins? If you say that it is the tanna who taught the conversation between the ministering angels and God, it is difficult, as weren’t there also Moses and Aaron who did not die due to their own sins? Rather, it must be Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that even Moses and Aaron died because of their own sins. Learn from it then that, in principle, he agrees that there is death without sin and there is suffering without iniquity, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ami. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

The below Zohar begs a few questions: What is the importance of seeing Adam upon death?
I propose that in the end, sin is not a necessary outcome of the human condition.
The story of Adam explains the creation of the human condition
But each person is responsible to work within that condition, not to transcend it.

ספר הזהר, בראשית צ״ח:תט״ו

רַבִּי יֵיסָא אָמַר כֻּלְהוּ בְּנֵי עָלְמָא חָמָאן לֵיהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּשַׁעֲתָא דְּמִסְתַּלְּקֵי מִן עָלְמָא, לְאַחֲזָאָה סַהֲדוּתָא דִּבְגִין חוֹבוֹי דְּבַר נָשׁ אִיהוּ אִסְתַּלַּק מֵעָלְמָא וְלָא בְגִינֵיהּ דְּאָדָם. כְּמָה דִּתְנִינָן אֵין מִיתָה בְּלא חֵטְא.

Zohar, Bereshit 98:415

415. Rabbi Yesa said: THE REASON Adam appears to each person at the moment of their departure from this world is to testify that this person is dying on account of his own sins and not because of those of Adam. As we have learned, there is not death without sin.

ספר הזהר, בא ו׳:קל״ו

פָּתַח רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר, תָּא חֲזֵי, כְּתִיב, (קהלת ז׳:ט״ו) אֶת הַכֹּל רָאִיתִי בִּימֵי הֶבְלִי יֵשׁ צַדִּיק אוֹבֵד בְּצִדְקוֹ וְיֵשׁ רָשָׁע מַאֲרִיךְ בְּרָעָתוֹ, שְׁלמֹה דַּהֲוַת חָכְמְתָא יְתֵירָא (נ"א יקירא) עַל כֹּלָּא, מַאי קָאָמַר בְּהַאי קְרָא. אֶלָּא, שְׁלֹמֹה רֶמֶז דְּחָכְמְתָא קָא רָמַז. דְּהָא חָזֵינָן אוֹרְחוֹי דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא דְּלָאו הָכִי, דְּהָא כְּתִיב, (ירמיהו י״ז:י׳) וְלָתֵת לְאִישׁ כִּדְרָכָיו וְכִּפְרִי מַעֲלָלָיו. אֶלָּא תְּרֵי עִנְיָינֵי נִינְהוּ, דְּקָא רָמַז הָכָא.

Zohar, Bo 6:136

136. Rabbi Shimon opened the discussion, saying: Come and behold. It is written, "All things have I seen in the days of my vanity. There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness" (Kohelet 7:15). What did Solomon, who possessed more wisdom then any other person, speak of in this verse? HE RESPONDS, Solomon alluded to wisdom. We see that the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are not so, for it is written, "To give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (Yirmeyah 17:10). But he is alluding to two themes here.

ספר הזהר, בא ו׳:קל״ז

דְּתָנֵינָן, כַּד עֵינוֹי דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בָּעָאן לְאַשְׁגָּחָא בְּעָלְמָא, וּלְעַיְינָא בֵּיהּ, כְּמָה דִּכְתִּיב (דברי הימים ב ט״ז:ט׳) כִּי יְיָ' עֵינָיו מְשׁוֹטְטוֹת בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ, וְאַשְׁכְּחָן חַיָּיבִין בְּעָלְמָא, הַהוּא צַדִּיקָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּדָרָא, אִתְּפַס בְּחוֹבַיְיהוּ.

וְחַיָּיבַיָּא מַאֲרִיךְ קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא רוּגְזֵיהּ עִמְּהוֹן עַד דִּיתוּבוּן. וְאִי לָאו, לָא יִשְׁתְּכַּח מַאן דְּיִתְבַּע רַחֲמֵי עֲלֵיהוֹן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב, יֵשׁ צַדִּיק אוֹבֵד בְּצִדְקוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דְּהַהוּא זַכָּאָה, אִסְתַּלָּק מֵעָלְמָא.

Zohar, Bo 6:137

137. We have learned that the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be He, wish to watch over the world and observe it, as it is written, "For the eyes of Hashem run to and fro throughout the whole earth" (II Divrei Hayamim 16:9). If there are wicked people in the world, the righteous man in that generation is snared in their sins. The Holy One, blessed be He, is longsuffering with the wicked until they repent. If they do not, then there will be no one to plead mercy for them. This is the meaning of, "There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness." It is because he is righteous that he has departed from the world.

The idea here is that sometimes a Tzaddik will die with the Rasha not only despite his rightiousness, but because of it.
Like in the story of Sedom, if there are rightious in a place, they can prevent the place from being destroyed.
But, this can prevent Justice from filtering out evil to allow more good to take its place.
Like in Sodom, Lot must be removed so Sodom can have its judgement. Had Lot not left, he would have been killed.

ספר הזהר, בא ו׳:קל״ח

בְּגִינֵי כַּךְ תָּנֵינָן, לְעוֹלָם אַל יָדוּר אָדָם אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֵׂה דָּרִים בְּתוֹכוֹ. מַאי טַעֲמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּוַוי לְהַאי דְּמָדוֹרֵיהּ בֵּין חַיָּיבַיָּא, דְּהוּא אִתְּפַס בְּחוֹבַיְיהוּ, וְאִי דִּיוֹרֵיהּ בֵּין זַכָּאִין, אוֹטִיבִין לֵיהּ בְּגִינֵיהוֹן.

Zohar, Bo 6:138

138. Therefore we learned that a person should only live in a place where men of action live. For what reason? Woe unto the person who dwells among the wicked, for he is caught in their sins. And if he dwells among the righteous, he is dealt well with due to their merit.

שבועות ל״ט א:כ״ב

וכל עבירות שבתורה מכל העולם לא והכתיב (ויקרא כו, לז) וכשלו איש באחיו איש בעון אחיו מלמד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה

התם שיש בידם למחות ולא מיחו

Shevuot 39a:22

The Gemara asks: And with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah, is punishment not exacted from the entire world? But isn’t it written: “And they shall stumble one upon another” (Leviticus 26:37)? This verse is homiletically interpreted to mean that they shall stumble spiritually, one due to the iniquity of another, which teaches that the entire Jewish people are considered guarantors for one another. Apparently, any transgression makes the entire world liable to be punished.

The Gemara answers: There, in that verse, the reference is to a case where the others had the ability to protest the transgression, and nevertheless, they did not protest. By contrast, when one takes a false oath, the entire world is punished, even those who were not able to protest.